Open-Ended Activities:
Differentiation Through Learner
Nancy B. Hertzog
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
ABSTRACT
This article explores the meaning of curricular dif-
ferentiation for identified gifted students by exam-
ining learner responses to open-ended activities.
Very little research supports or describes how
open-ended activities—which have been advocated
as a strategy to allow students to work in their own
interest areas, in their own learning styles, and at
their own ability level—serve to differentiate the
curriculum. This paper sets curriculum differentia-
tion in an historical perspective, reviews a compre-
hensive investigation into the nature of
open-ended activities, and focuses on how and in
what ways the responses to open-ended activities
of children identified as gifted differed from
responses of children who were not identified as
gifted in a third-grade and a fourth-grade heteroge-
neously grouped classroom. The study also focuses
on teacher perceptions of classroom activities and
learner responses. Data sources included observa-
tions over the course of one academic year, inter-
views with teachers and students, learning style
and interest assessment instruments, and docu-
ments related to over 33 open-ended activities.
Based on the findings reported here, the author
proposes a reexamination of the meaning of curric-
ular differentiation with a renewed emphasis on
determining how an instructional strategy, for
example, providing open-ended activities,
mizes studentscapabilities.
At 10a.cn. Monday through Friday, ill 24 students in
Keiths third-grade classroom open their writing note-
books and begin tbeir 30minutes of writing time. Thev
may write anything. in whatever genre then choose
(fietion, non-notion, poctry), and they may take as long
as theyd like to finish a story that
they have begun. For
some children, one written piece may take weeks.
When students finish thcir first drafts, they get help
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at National Association for Gifted Children on August 21, 2015
212
Responses
from the teacher to edit their work. Then they copy
their story into a final form and bind it to be displayed
on a rack of finished stories.
Would all children want to be involved in such a
learning experience? Could all children participate in
such a learning experience? Should all children be
expected to succeed in such a learning experience? If
the answer is &dquo;yes&dquo; to all of those questions, then this
PUTTING THE RESEARCH TO USE
The
findings presented in this paper have practi-
cal well as theoretical implications. In most
as
classrooms, teachers assume responsibility for dif-
ferentiating the curriculum to address a diverse
array of educational needs. Open-ended activities
are an often-advocated, but ambiguous strategy for
differentiating the curriculum in a heterogeneous
setting. The teachers in this study demonstrated
that they used a variety of open-ended activities for
different instructional goals. Articulating openness
as a continuum of choices in the content, process,
and product domains provides a conceptual frame-
work for empowering teachers and students in their
instructional decision-making. Teachers may
become more aware of how the design and imple-
mentation of open-ended activities affect the qual-
ity and variability of learner responses.
maxi- For researchers, this discussion of quality and
variability suggests moving beyond the accepted
theoretical framework of differentiation to a more
individualized notion of maximizing student capa-
bilities. Whether or not students identified as gifted
responded in a way that was &dquo;qualitatively different&dquo;
from their peers who were not identified as gifted
was perhaps not as relevant as whether or not stu-
dents responded in ways that maximized their per-
formance. This paper ignites discourse about the
meaning of curricular differentiation in heteroge-
neously grouped classrooms, and suggests a redefin-
ition of &dquo;differentiation through learner response.&dquo;
is not differentiated instruction for students identified
as gifted as defined by Passow (1982). Open-ended
activities, such as Keiths writing instructional time
period, defy the criteria of differentiation suggested by
these three questions. Open-ended activities embody
instead the potential to differentiate the curriculum
through learner responses. Differentiating learning
experiences through learner responses, as opposed to
offering different learning experiences, means to differ-
entiate instruction by allowing students to work at
their own rates, use their preferred learning styles,
investigate their own interests, and produce work com-
mensurate with their abilities. Research examining
how learner responses can differentiate instruction is
limited.
The application of curricular differentiation-pro-
viding different learning experiences to a selected
group of children, one critical component of gifted edu-
cation-is perhaps the most debatable issue in the
field. Yet, it is the least understood for practitioners. It
is no coincidence that Robinson (1995) noted that
papers on curriculum study are the least selected for
outstanding papers in Gifted Child Quarterly over the
last 10 years. Delving into the complexities of the term
curricular differentiation is a challenge for all
researchers pursuing curricular studies. The purpose of
this paper is to examine open-ended activities as an
instructional strategy to differentiate instruction in a
general educational setting. The meaning of curricular
differentiation will be thoroughly explored first,
because it is necessary to understand this concept
before applying it to open-ended activities.
Differentiation:
An Historical Perspective
When the headlines from the Boston Globe read &dquo;Dull
Work for Bright Students: Survey Finds Their Studies
Repetitive&dquo; (McCarthy, 1992) and an article in the
Chicago Tribune is titled &dquo;The Educational Mainstream
Drowns Gifted Children,&dquo; (Beck, 1992), the public is
being made aware that education should be different for
students with exceptional abilities. These headlines were
generated after findings from a study conducted by The
National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented,
University of Connecticut, were made public (Westberg,
Archambault, Dobyns, & Salvin, 1993). The study found
that, although &dquo;nearly all gifted and talented students in
this country spend most of their school day in the regu-
lar classroom&dquo; (p. 3), &dquo;target gifted and talented students
experienced no instructional or curricular differentia-
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at National Association for Gifted Children on August 21, 2015
tion in 84% of the instructional activities in which they
participated&dquo; (p. 1).
In order to address curricular differentiation in the
general education setting, the meaning of differentia-
tion must be clear. Over the last two decades, the ambi-
guity of what is meant by curricular differentiation or
the misapplication of differentiation principles has cre-
ated hostilities that have brought charges of elitism to
the entire field of gifted education. Sapon-Shevin
(1993) not only criticized the notion of providing dif-
ferent learning experiences, but also faulted the basic
principles which underlie the rationale for gifted edu-
cation. Gifted programs, she argued, are not democra-
tic. She stated:
Declaring that there is something undemocratic about gifted
education, something fundamentally wrong with labeling a
small group of children in a way that entitles them to a highly
differentiated, almost always superior, education is a bit like
saying that the emperor has no clothes-it is both patently
obvious to many and yet not something we talk about. (p. 26)
The major finding of the Classroom Practices
Survey, that classroom teachers make only minor mod-
ifications in the regular curriculum to meet the needs
of identified gifted students, was criticized by Delisle
(1994):
In a classic case of being damned if you do and damned if you
dont, teachers who claimed they treated their gifted and
average students differently could be accused of giving pref-
erential treatment, while those who did not distinguish
between students as regards resources and instruction might
be chided as being boring. Go figure.&dquo; (p. 226)
At the 1995 annual convention of the National
Association for Gifted Children, the meaning and his-
tory of curricular differentiation was revisited with a
panel discussion entitled, &dquo;Beyond the Leadership
Training Institute (LTI) Principles-What Is
Appropriate Curriculum for the Gifted?&dquo; (Callahan,
1995). Most significantly, this discussion was to
heighten an awareness of the distinguishing features of
curriculum for identified gifted students and to ques-
tion, perhaps intellectually, how it is different from
best practices in curriculum and instruction for all
learners. Panel members were asked specifically to
address the relevancy of the founding principles of cur-
ricular differentiation within the context of the 1990s
curriculum reform movements. I present the reader
now with an overview of the historical perspective of
differentiation as it came to be defined in the field of
gifted education. In order to understand what is meant
by differentiation through &dquo;learner responses&dquo; and to
comprehend the significance of this strategy, it is nec-
213
essary to see how the meaning of curricular differenti-
ation has evolved.
Wards
Theory
In 1961, Virgil Ward wrote a theoretical book entitled
Education
for the Gifted: An Axiomatic Approach.
Although gifted education was advanced by the events
surrounding Soviet competition and Sputnik in the
1950s, Wards book was one of the first to conceptualize
characteristics of gifted education as different from edu-
cation for all students. He has often been referred to as
the &dquo;grandfather&dquo; of Differential Education for the
Gifted (DEG). His theory consisted of propositions and
corollaries based upon learning characteristics, social
and historical context of school and society, and peda-
gogical principles. Though they were developed over 30
years ago, they still remain the theoretical framework
from which many practitioners have developed their
curricular models. While many references in the litera-
ture credit other authors for principles of differentiated
instruction, it can clearly be seen in Wards work that
he advocated differences in process, product, and con-
tent domains. One of his propositions stated: &dquo;The edu-
cation of the gifted child and youth should emphasize
enduring methods and sources of learning, as opposed
to a terminal emphasis upon present states of knowl-
edge&dquo; (p. 156). Long before creative problem solving
programs became prevalent, Ward advocated that
&dquo;learning should be conceived as the continuous, on-
going acquisition of data pertinent to problem situa-
tions, not as a set of given facts which, it is hoped, will
apply to problems that arise subsequently in the life
career&dquo; (p. 156). One of the major criticisms of Wards
theoretical framework is that he based all of his propo-
sitions on the characteristics of gifted children whom he
defined as those with exceptional intellectual ability.
His theories were based on a narrow definition of gift-
edness (children who scored at least two standard devi-
ations above the mean on a test of intellectual ability).
Definitions and National Guidelines
In 1976, the Office of the Gifted and Talented
defined differentiated education or services as
that process of instruction which is capable of being integrated
into the school program and is adaptable to varying levels of
individual learning response in the education of the gifted and
talented and includes but is not limited to:
1. A differentiated curriculum embodying a high level of cog-
nitive and affective concepts and processes beyond those nor-
mally provided in the regular curriculum of the local
educational agency;
2. Instructional strategies which accommodate the unique
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at National Association for Gifted Children on August 21, 2015
214
learning styles of the gifted and talented; and
3. Flexible administrative arrangements for instruction both
in and out of school, such as special classes, seminars,
resource rooms, independent study, student internships, men-
torships, research field trips, library media research centers
and other appropriate arrangements. (North Carolina State
Department, 1988, p. 24)
In 1981, The National/State Leadership Training
Institute on the Gifted/Talented sponsored the First
National Curriculum Conference for the Gifted and
Talented in Baltimore, Maryland. The mission of the par-
ticipants was to clarify the questions raised by the Marland
Report (Marland, 1972), which listed three characteristics
for a differentiated educational program for gifted students:
1. a differentiated curriculum that promotes higher
cognitive processes;
2. instructional strategies that accommodate both cur-
riculum content and the learning styles of gifted and
talented children; and
3. special grouping arrangements appropriate to partic-
ular children (i.e., special classes, honor classes,
seminars, resource rooms, and the like).
Out of this First National Curriculum Conference
came Passows frequently quoted seven guiding princi-
ples to differentiation:
1. The content of curricula for the gifted/talented
should focus on and be organized to include more
elaborate, complex, and in-depth study of major
ideas, problems, and themes that integrate knowl-
edge with and across systems of thought;
2. Curricula for the gifted should allow for the develop-
ment and application of productive thinking skills to
enable students to reconceptualize existing knowl-
edge and/or generate new knowledge;
3. Curricula for the gifted/talented should enable them
to explore constantly changing knowledge and infor-
mation and develop the attitude that knowledge is
worth pursuing in an open world;
4. Curricula for the gifted/talented should encourage
exposure to, selection, and use of appropriate and
specialized resources;
5. Curricula for the gifted/talented should promote self-
initiated and self-directed learning and growth;
6. Curricula for the gifted/talented should provide for
the development of self-understandings and the
understanding of ones relationship to persons, soci-
etal institutions, nature, and culture; and
7. Evaluations of curricula for the gifted/talented
should be conducted in accordance with prior stated
principles, stressing higher-level thinking skills, cre-
ativity, and excellence in performance and products.
(Passow, 1982, pp. 7-10).
 Passow maintained that differentiation was relative
towhat was being taught in the regular curriculum. In
a paper prepared by Passow (1982), the Curriculum
Council put forth the following definition of differenti-
ated curriculum:
Differentiating curricula for the gifted/talented is essentially a
process of individualizing curricula to better match individual
and group learning needs, abilities, and styles. For the
gifted/talented, &dquo;differentiated curriculum&dquo; denotes sets of
specialized learning experiences which develop the unique
abilities of students identified as &dquo;gifted/talented.&dquo; A differen-
tiated curriculum embodies recognition of differing learning
rates, styles, interests, and abilities. Curriculum differentia-
tion aims at eliciting learner responses [italics added] com-
mensurate with gifts or talents. (p. 6)
Passow pointed out, &dquo;We are concerned with eliciting
what might be called a gifted response, the result of
interactions between the predispositions the student
brings to the learning situation and the richness of the
situation itself&dquo; (1982, p. 7).
Curricular Implications
Thus, even though Passow stated the importance of
the &dquo;gifted response,&dquo; most of the curricular implica-
tions have focused on &dquo;should&dquo; statements about the
type of instruction which should be given to students
identified as gifted (Kaplan, 1974; Maker, 1982;
Passow, 1982). For example, Renzulli (1977a) empha-
sized the following modifications:
1. teachers must move above and beyond the regular
curriculum;
2. teachers must take into account specific content
interests of students;
3. teachers must accommodate students preferred
styles of learning; and
4. teachers must give gifted/talented students opportu-
nities to pursue topic areas to unlimited areas of
inquiry.
Makers (1982) list of suggestions for curricular mod-
ifications included the following:
1. it must be more accelerated or advanced;
2. it must be more complex;
3. it must move beyond the regular curriculum;
4. it must be selected by the students according to their
interests; and
5. It must be concerned with the more abstract con-
cepts in each content area.
Although the authors are unlikely to have intended
it, the nature of a differentiated curriculum, as embod-
ied above, has relied historically on practices advo-
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at National Association for Gifted Children on August 21, 2015
cated for identified gifted children, but has been
deemed inappropriate for children not identified as
gifted. Research supporting most of those strategies,
particularly in the area of curriculum, is lacking
(Shore, Cornell, Robinson, & Ward, 1991).
Maker maintained that many of the &dquo;curricular prin-
ciples advocated for gifted children were appropriate
for all children because they were designed to allow
participation at the student level and encourage
responses at the highest level possible&dquo; (1986, p. 63). It
cannot be supported that these teaching strategies
need to be both &dquo;appropriate for the gifted and inap-
propriate for other students&dquo; (Maker, p. 63).
Expanding definitions of giftedness have com-
pounded the problem of determining what is appropri-
ate for gifted children and inappropriate for all
children. Giftedness is no longer defined by a score on
a standardized test of intelligence. Rather, the con-
struct of giftedness is variable and does not define a
homogeneous population (e.g., IQ over 130). A child
may be labeled gifted in one school district and not
gifted in another within the same city or state, depend-
ing upon the criteria used for the selection process.
This variability in who is labeled gifted and who is not,
changes the way identified gifted children can be
grouped. Students identified as gifted do not all have
the same learning characteristics. Therefore, curricula
cannot be prescribed for their characteristics as a
whole group. Some children not identified as gifted by
the arbitrary criteria set forth in a particular school dis-
tricts definition have indeed benefited from curricu-
lum and teaching strategies designed for gifted students
(Reis et al., 1993).
Returning, then, to the notion that curriculum dif-
ferentiation aims at &dquo;eliciting learner responses com-
mensurate with gifts or talents&dquo; (Passow, 1982, p. 6),
we must examine those activities that allow for differ-
entiated responses. Open-ended activities have the
potential to allow for differentiated responses, but
there has been little discussion in the literature of this
strategy for curricular differentiation. If the most basic
principle underlying curriculum development for the
gifted is that the &dquo;experiences for these children must
be qualitatively different from the basic program pro-
vided for all children&dquo; (Maker, 1982, p. 3), then
responses to learning activities must be examined to
determine if and how they are qualitatively different.
Thus, although the investigation into the nature of
open-ended activities (Hertzog, 1995) delved into all
aspects of the teaching strategy including design, char-
acteristics, and interactions among the students and
215
teachers, this paper focuses on the learner responses to
those activities. It is necessary now to define open-
ended activities as they were conceptualized for this
study.
Definition of Open-Ended Activities
In the literature on creativity, open-ended activities
referred specifically to those activities with multiple
responses (enhance fluency), rather than one correct
answer. Maker (1982) expanded the meaning of open-
ended activities to include not only variety in the end
product (i.e., the response), but also in the process. Her
definition of open-ended activities involved choices.
Expanding the definition of open-ended activities
from being open only in the product domain to those
that provided the learner with choices in the content,
process, or product domain enhanced their potential
use as a strategy to modify curriculum. Using the con-
ceptual framework of curricular differentiation to
examine open-ended activities, I articulated differ-
ences between the activities, and specifically looked to
see in what ways the curriculum was modified for stu-
dents who pursued open-ended activities.
By examining the ways that curriculum was differen-
tiated, a broad rather than narrow definition of curricu-
lum was used. This broad definition of curriculum
includes &dquo;all of the experiences, both planned and
unplanned, that occur under the auspices of the school&dquo;
(Jackson, 1992, p. 8). Situating open-ended activities
into the larger framework of classroom research, they
can be described as an instructional strategy or instruc-
tional format, the third of six components of instruction
as defined by Anderson and Burns (1989), &dquo;patterns of
teacher behavior that are recurrent, applicable to vari-
ous subject matters, characteristic of more than one
teacher, and relevant to learning&dquo; (Gage, 1969, as cited
in Anderson & Burns, 1989, p. 11).
The research question guiding the study was how
open-ended activities provided curricular differentia-
tion in a general education setting. Responses to open-
ended activities included the interactions that students
had with the subject matter, the teacher, their peers,
curricular materials, and their classroom environment.
Responses included the products of these interactions
as well as the processes of completing the products. A
qualitative design was needed to appreciate the com-
plexity of the relationships between the teacher, the
curriculum, implementation of the instructional strat-
egy, and the classroom dynamics which influenced the
students learning experiences.
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at National Association for Gifted Children on August 21, 2015
216
Method
Using a naturalistic, qualitative design, I observed
how open-ended activities were designed across curric-
ular areas, and focused on the way students who were
identified as gifted responded to them in one third- and
one fourth-grade classroom throughout one academic
year (Hertzog, 1995). No attempt to alter the patterns
or methods in which the teacher implemented them
were made. Thus, they were observed with all of the
complexities of classroom life, including last minute or
on-the-spot changes in implementation, as well as ritu-
alistic (same day, same activity) implementation. The
phenomenon under study was the relationship of open-
ended activities to curricular differentiation.
Setting and Participants
Purposeful sampling (Patton, 1980) was used to
select the setting and participants. The school district
was selected because there were no formal pull-out pro-
grams or special classes for identified gifted and tal-
ented children in this district. Curricular differentiation
for students identified as gifted was the responsibility of
every classroom teacher. Therefore, I expected that all
teachers would be using strategies to differentiate cur-
riculum and instruction. The selection of teachers Keith
and Becky represented extreme case sampling because
I chose them for their interest in meeting the needs of
identified gifted students. Both teachers were building
representatives on the district wide committee for gifted
education. Both teachers self-reported that they used
open-ended activities on a regular basis. They provided
opportunities for me to observe open-ended activities
over an extensive time period.
The school district was situated near a large state
university in the midwest. The district reported a pop-
ulation of 4,703 students with a 92.9% graduation rate.
Demographics for the 1995 school year were reported
in the Annual School Report Card: 65% Caucasian,
24.9% African American, 2.1% Hispanic, 7.7%
Asian/Pacific Islander, and .2% Native American.
Teachers. Keith, the third grade teacher, was the
building coordinator for gifted programs for several
years. He had a Ph.D. in education, an administrative
certificate and nearly 20 years of teaching experience.
His classroom had 14 boys and 10 girls. Eleven were
identified gifted students, four were receiving special
education services for their learning disabilities (LD),
and one was labeled behavior disordered (BD).
Becky, the fourth grade teacher, had a B.A. in edu-
cation and more than 25 years of teaching experience.
Becky had a total of 28 students, 15 boys and 13 girls,
in her class. Many of her students received special
education services. Four students were labeled learn-
ing disabled (LD), four students received speech ther-
apy, two went to the Chapter 1 reading program, five
saw a social worker, and two were referred for special
education for exhibiting evidence of behavior disor-
ders. Because of her experience and her interest in
gifted education, Becky had all of the identified gifted
students from the fourth grade, a total of nine, in her
class.
Students. Eleven out of 20 students identified as
gifted in both classrooms were selected to be the tar-
get students for the study (see Figure 1). The primary
criteria for selection was parental consent for stu-
dents responses of open-ended activities to be
copied and collected for the study. In Keiths room, I
chose 6 students out of 11. Of the five that I did not
target, one parent refused permission, two parents
did not return permission slips, one child was away
from the country the first semester, and the last stu-
dent was the child of my faculty advisor. Out of a
pool of nine in Beckys classroom, I targeted five stu-
Figure
Target Children and Their Identified Area of Giftedness
*Identified in math by previous school district.
Note:GE=Gender, M=Male, F=Female, ET=Ethnicity, C=Caucasian, M=Minority
C/HL=Creative/Higher Level Thinking, LA=Language Arts, LS=Leadership, MA=Mathematics, RE=Reading, SC=Science, SO=Social Studies,
V/PA=Visual/Performing Arts
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at National Association for Gifted Children on August 21, 2015
dents whose parents also consented. Of the four
whom I did not choose, one parent refused permis-
sion, and the other three failed to return consent
forms. Four out of five of the target students from
Beckys room were female because only one out of
five identified male students returned the consent
form. Figure 1 summarizes their gender, ethnicity,
and areas of giftedness identified.
Children in the district were identified as gifted in
the areas of leadership, creative/higher level thinking,
visual/performing arts, language arts, mathematics
(concepts or applications), science, and social studies.
The State Comprehensive Plan for Gifted Education
(School District 116, 1990) stated,
Although the identification is an ongoing process, students
will be evaluated at the beginning of the kindergarten year, the
fourth grade year, the seventh grade year, and the ninth grade
year. With the exception of the kindergarten year, these are
years which follow achievement testing. In addition to these
objective measures, one or more subjective measures are used
to confirm identification of talents. Subjective measures may
be a checklist nominationcompleted by teachers, peers or
parents, past grades and performance, or products, auditions
or portfolios. (p. 4)
1
217
 Approximately 15-20% of the students were identi-
fied as gifted in this school district. Third-graders were
identified based on their kindergarten screening test
scores from the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test and a
recommendation from their classroom teacher.
Fourth-graders were screened by using the third-grade
scores resulting from the Iowa Test of Basic Skills
(ITBS). Cut-off scores for the various subject areas
included 70th percentile in vocabulary, reading com-
prehension or language skills; 95th percentile in math;
90th percentile in science; and 80th percentile in all
other areas.
Data Sources and Analysis
Data sources included observations, interviews with
participating teachers and target students, and docu-
ments related to the activities or the classrooms of the
participating teachers involved. Over 100 hours
spent observing in the classrooms from October 1993
to May 1994. Thirty-three different open-ended activi-
ties were analyzed.
Observational data were triangulated with students
responses on the Interest-a-lyzer (Renzulli, 1977b),
and the Learning Styles Inventory (Renzulli & Smith,
1978). These instruments were used to determine
whether responses to open-ended activities were in
students preferred learning styles, interest areas, or
both. Two formal interviews and ongoing informal
interviews with each classroom teacher, as well as
informal interviews with target students, were also
used to triangulate observational data.
Data analysis was inductive, allowing categories,
themes, and patterns to emerge (Janesick, 1994). To
analyze how open-ended activities were designed and
implemented, I developed the Open-Ended Activity
Profile, adapted from Kaplans Grid (Kaplan, 1986).
Using a matrix as a form of data display is a recom-
mended strategy for analyzing qualitative data
(Huberman & Miles, 1994). Operational definitions of
content, process, and product were generated for the
purposes of categorizing the choices in the open-ended
activities. Content referred to the topic or area of
study. The process category included choices in how
the children would proceed during the open-ended
activity. Examples of choices in the process domain
include sequence, materials, selecting work partner(s),
working at school or at home, or choosing from
processes specific to a discipline such as editing before
doing a final draft, predicting before calculating, or
working backwards to solve a math problem. The prod-
uct domain was defined as the tangible response to the
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at National Association for Gifted Children on August 21, 2015
218
activity. The activities were described by examining
whether students had unlimited, many, few, or no
choices within those domains.
Establishing Trustworthiness
Three methods were used to enhance the credibility
of the study: prolonged engagement, persistent obser-
vation, and triangulation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In
addition, member checks were an integral part of the
study. Engaging participating teachers in constant dia-
logue about the activities, interviews, and observations
provided ongoing member checks for the analysis and
writing stages of the study. Transcripts were routinely
shared with participating teachers for their edits and
comments. This ongoing communication gave insight
and credence to interpreting the findings.
A variety of data sources, data triangulation
were described by Denzin (1978), were used to verify obser-
vational data. For example, to verify that students
responses reflected their ability levels, multiple student
responses were collected over time, teachers were
interviewed to ascertain their assessment, and informal
interviews with the students were documented in the
field notes. To determine whether the students made
choices according to their preferred learning styles,
observational data was triangulated with the Learning
Styles Inventory (Renzulli & Smith, 1978), teacher
interviews, and informal student interviews which were
documented on a daily basis in the field notes.
Other methods to enhance the credibility of the
study included peer reviews, interim and progress
reports, and prolonged engagement in the field. Peer
reviews occurred during the data collection, analysis,
and writing processes of the study.
Reflections of Personal Bias Toward Open-
Ended Activities.
The biases within the researcher must be examined
in qualitative studies, as bias must be examined in
instruments of measurement for quantitative studies.
To examine emerging subjectivities, I kept a reflective
journal. In the journal, I kept track of my thoughts
about my research, my decisions along the way, and
my biases toward open-ended activities and my partic-
ipants. Reflective journals have been advocated in the
literature (Van Manen, 1990).
Throughout the study, peer reviewers questioned
me about my biases toward open-ended activities. Prior
to the study, I highly valued them. I suspected strongly
that (a) responses from open-ended activities revealed
more about the students than responses from close-
ended activities; (b) it is good to know as much as pos-
sible about the students; (c) the more teachers know
about their students, the more teachers can personal-
ize instruction, and (d) the more personalized instruc-
tion teachers give to students, the more engaged
students will be in their learning. Ultimately, I wanted
to make it easier for teachers to develop open-ended
activities. As the study progressed, and I examined the
complexities of their design and use, I became more
cautious in my advocacy. This cautious stance will be
described more fully when I present the implications of
this research in the discussion section of this paper.
Open-Ended Activities Across the Curriculum
Open-ended activities were observed in nearly every
curricular area, although they were designed and
implemented differently across the two classroom set-
tings. Briefly, I will describe some of those differences
and the types of activities which I observed in each set-
ting. Space is too limited here for a thorough descrip-
tion of all 33 activities. For a more thorough discussion
of all of the activities, see Hertzog (1995).
In Keiths third grade classroom, I observed mostly
writing, reading, discussion periods, and &dquo;free time&dquo;
because these were the areas in which he told me I
would have the most opportunities to see children
engaged in open-ended activities. As explained earlier,
writing was routinely an open-ended activity
period where children had approximately 30 minutes
to write whatever they wanted in their notebooks.
They could write with a partner or by themselves, at
their seats or somewhere else in the room. They had
many choices in the content and process domain, but
their choices in the product domain were limited.
Students were expected to write a first draft of a story,
get help from a teacher to edit it, copy it over in final
form, and bind it with a book binder that was located
in the room. Students had the choice of sharing stories
orally with the class or leaving it on a book rack to be
read by other children.
Reading in Keiths room was a time for children to
read any book of their choice silently at their seats or
somewhere else in the room. Keith held private book
conferences with the children to enhance understand-
ing of what they read and to share information about
their chosen books with him.
In Keiths room, discussion periods took place regu-
larly every morning and every afternoon at group meet-
ing times. Keith often let children discuss what was on
their minds. Children had free time when they finished
their work and the teacher was not ready to move on to
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at National Association for Gifted Children on August 21, 2015
the next subject. Keith valued free time. Most days
Keith built a free time period into their schedule.
Children could choose to do anything during free time,
including playing games, drawing pictures, listening to
music with ear phones, or working on plays together.
Keiths free time had unlimited options in every
domain: content, process, and product.
Whereas Keiths open-ended activities were built
into the pattern and construction of his schedule and
subject areas, Becky routinely varied the design of her
open-ended activities across the disciplines. In Beckys
room, I observed math, science, language arts, French,
and discussion periods. Becky constructed open-ended
activities for writing on some days by giving students a
theme or title to write about, or asking students for a
specific genre within which they could choose the
topic. Becky frequently varied the number of choices
and types of domains in which the activities were open.
Beckys math, however, focused on problem solving
skills and nearly always had unlimited options in the
process domain. Examples of how some of these activ-
ities were analyzed graphically on the Open-Ended
Activity Profile are given in Figure 2.
Figure 2
time Activities categorized on the Open-Ended Activity
Profile
Note: KW=Keiths Writing Period, BW=Beckys Writing Activity-Title
Given, KFT=Keiths Free Time Period, BMPS=Beckys Math Problem-
Solving Time
The Open-Ended Activity Profile provided an analysis
tool to examine the differences in design of the open-
ended activities. They also enhanced the analysis of
the students responses in terms of their variability. In
other words, when students had few or no options
within one domain, were responses more similar than
when students had unlimited options within one
domain? If students had unlimited options within the
219
product domain, were their responses more varied
than if they had unlimited options within the content
domain? Thus, variability (differentiation) was
explored not only among students responses, but also
in relation to the type of open-ended activity that was
presented.
Results
How Responses to Open-Ended Activities
Differed
To examine how open-ended activities differentiated
instruction through learner responses, it was necessary
to apply the principles of differentiation as stated ear-
lier. I explicitly asked the two teachers how responses
from identified gifted children differed, in general, from
responses of other children on open-ended activities.
Keith explained:
One thing that surprises me is that most often times my high
achieving students or the students who are traditionally A stu-
dents dont tend just do the assignment and quit and do
to
something else.
They tend to also elaborate, take more time,
be more personally involved, and its certainly encouraged.
Becky described how her students identified as
gifted performed differently from her other students in
open-ended activities:
If I ask them, if were studying other cultures or something,
they can select an easier or a more difficult level. Usually, the
children who arent very gifted perhaps will write about things
that they see in the films and things that we do in class, but
dont do a lot of research to find out more things to go into
depth. And the children who are the real thinkers and the
readers will go in and read through encyclopedias, books and
all kinds of wonderful things.
Note that Becky and Keith perceived differences in
the students process of learning and in the products.
Becky and Keith described evidence of students taking
on self-initiative to make more elaborate and better
products. They also described how students became
more involved in the process of learning, and sought
external resources according to their interests. My
observational data and copies of students responses
verified the teachers perceptions. This level of per-
sonal involvement was especially seen in the writing
instruction in Keiths room, and in the project activi-
ties in Beckys room. Targeted students in Keiths room
were self-motivated to create elaborate stories, and
they often planned ahead for other stories. In Beckys
room, targeted students raced to tell me about the pro-
jects, how and with whom they planned them, where
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at National Association for Gifted Children on August 21, 2015
220
they met after
school, and all of the materials and
resources they used, including a childs home com-
puter. Most of the other children in her room, doing the
same projects, did not seek outside help or materials,
or meet after school to work on their projects.
The teachers saw variability in terms of interest
and going beyond what other children did. Going
&dquo;above and beyond&dquo; what other children do is sup-
ported in the gifted education literature as a means of
differentiating instruction. In this sense, open-ended
activities were a means of providing opportunities for
students to go beyond what was required. However, to
examine whether responses were in other ways quali-
tatively different, I looked at other dimensions of vari-
ability. Specifically, I questioned teachers about
whether the quality of students products or responses
differed, and whether students were working at their
ability levels.
Judgments of Quality
Becky and Keith did not compare responses of tar-
geted students to other students. Rather, they individ-
ualized their evaluation criteria and evaluated
students responses based on their perceptions of the
students capabilities. This factor may have been
instrumental in facilitating the environment for the
activities to occur. Students were not threatened by
unfair comparisons of their products.
When the products were in written form, such as
Keiths writing or stories in Beckys class that focused
on a given topic, the quality of writing reflected stu-
dents writing abilities. The district writing expert
scored writing samples holistically according to qual-
ity of content, organization, style, and mechanics.
Without knowing who the identified gifted students
were, she was able to name all but two of the targeted
students by examining their writing samples. This
demonstrated that most of the targeted students per-
formed better than their peers on these activities. The
open-ended writing activities provided an opportunity
for children to produce qualitatively different
responses which demonstrated their strength in the
language arts area.
Some of the responses to open-ended activities
involved drawing. Elements of drawing ability were
never part of the teachers evaluation criteria. Some of
the students who were not target students demon-
strated exceptional drawing skills with elaborate
details, unusual uses of space and color, and original
ideas. The drawing samples serve to illustrate that tar-
geted students, no matter how motivated, how capable,

or how organized they were, did not perform
ily better as a group than their peers on
which involved drawing. This was totally dependent on
students interests and strengths in the art discipline.
In fact, responses in this format gave students who
were not identified as gifted an opportunity to demon-
strate their strengths and creative imagination through
their drawing.
Quality of responses seemed relatively unimportant
to the teachers in some of the open-ended activities.
Becky used the math and science journals for her own
information and for class discussion. When she asked
the students to write down the hardest math fact they
knew, or some scientific event that they had heard
about over the weekend, the purpose was to share
information, not to judge the quality of their work. For
example, in the science journals, it was evident that
some of the students understood the science concepts
they wrote about while others did not. In our interview,
I talked with Becky about the science journal
responses. She said that she just wanted to know if
they could relate some of the things they see to sci-
ence. I asked her if it was important for them to get the
scientific principle correct. She replied, &dquo;Since I never
talked to them about that, or explained to them that
they had to understand it, I certainly wouldnt have
evaluated them on that.&dquo;
Thus, although quality of responses in the science
journal was not an issue to the teacher, quality differed
in the criteria that I developed for analysis purposes:
writing clarity, sophistication, understanding of the
assignment, and the students abilities to relate what
they saw to science. Referring back to Passows three
questions: All children participated in their science
journals (whether they wanted to or not), all children
were able to participate at their own ability level, and
all children were expected to succeed in this activity,
because it was designed to provide the teacher with
information. To further allow the reader to judge how
quality differed between targeted and non-target stu-
dents, four examples of science journal responses
(what they saw in the last week that related to science)
are given below. The first two (Rl, R2) are from target
students, and the second two (R3, R4) were chosen
randomly from Beckys other students. They are
quoted with their original spelling:
Rl: Dec. 14, 1993
Last week in Science, I liked it when the student teacher did
a sort of science experiment with us with the eggbeaters. We
had to find out how many times the beater goes around when
once. Then twice, and so
you turn the wheel around
R2: My mom blew up our baked potatoes. When she
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at National Association for Gifted Children on August 21, 2015
fork them she opened the microwave and pop, bang, we had
necessar-
mashed potatoes. Its scientific because it had to [do] with
activities
machines and electricity.
R3: On Saterday moring tuck apurt my toy car. Thin I let it go
and I sall how the lechtrysoty run throe it.
R4: I saw my mom makeing hameburgres.
Afterdiscussing all of the science responses with
Becky, she commented, &dquo;Its really interesting, you
know, when you give these kinds of assignments, you
give it for one reason and maybe, you know, you
learn so much more.&dquo; These responses, although
brief, were indicative of writing, spelling, organiza-
tion, and thinking abilities. They revealed students
awareness and interest in science. The emphasis on
the journal activities was on what the children knew,
not on how well they expressed it. Thus, although the
quality of responses differed, this appeared to be
irrelevant to the goal or the instructional design of
the activity. For Becky, a high quality response was
not a goal in the science journal. Instead, her goal
was simply to learn about the students abilities to
connect an event to science. In reviewing the stu-
dents responses with me, she admitted that she
learned more about the students than she had
expected. Judgments of quality in open-ended activi-
ties that are primarily designed for self-expression
may not be important to the teacher, even though
these types of activities may reveal vast differences
in abilities and interests.
In summary, the quality of responses was based on
arbitrary criteria, contextual for each open-ended
activity. The quality of responses was indicative of dif-
ferences in students abilities. In most cases where the
products were written, responses required language
skills such as spelling, use of capital letters, sentence
structure, and organization. Targeted students written
responses most often could be discerned from the
written responses of their peers who were not identi-
fied as gifted in the language arts area. This finding,
although not surprising because most of the students
were identified as gifted in the language arts area,
demonstrated that open-ended activities such as jour-
nal writing provided those students an opportunity to
express themselves in their strength areas (e.g., lan-
guage arts).
Comparing quality of responses between targeted
and other students was not the whole issue.
Specifically, I wanted to know if the quality of response
matched students ability levels, because this would be
an indicator that the activity served to differentiate
instruction according to the characteristics of the
on.
forget to learners.
221
Relationship of Response to Structure of the
Activity
I examined whether the
design of the open-ended
activities gave students the option of performing in a
way that either was or was not commensurate with
their abilities. I believed that attitudes as well as the
instructional design factored into whether students
worked at their ability levels. Because the teachers
knew the students ability levels better than I did, I
questioned the teachers, &dquo;Does the quality of response
match their ability level?&dquo; Keith responded, &dquo;Generally
yes ... There are rare exceptions, and that is a student
who has a particular aversion to a discipline area and
they tend to do minimal work.&dquo; Keith gave me the
example of one of the target students in his room whom
he felt was not writing to his potential. Keith felt that
the student needed to get used to the writing instruc-
tion, and then he would perform at his ability level.
Where I expected the most visible differences to
occur in students responses were those activities
where students had the most choices in the product
domain, the traditional open-ended view. In all of these
types of open-ended activities, students had an oppor-
tunity to work in groups or with a partner. Interestingly
enough, I found that when there were unlimited
choices within the product domains, more similarities
in responses existed than differences. Giving students
unlimited choices within the product domain did not
necessarily result in vast differences in their products.
Other factors worked to enhance the similarity of their
products, including group dynamics, peer pressure,
and spontaneous examples being given to the students
by the teachers during the activity. For example, in
describing the noun presentations to the class, Becky
simply suggested a game show idea and every group but
one proceeded to do a game show. The original intent
or design of the activity was for the students to review
a particular section of their language books on nouns,
and make a presentation about what they learned in
that section. The French teacher asked the students to
design their own menu and dramatize being at a
French restaurant. When she introduced the activity,
she told Beckys students how another class had used
paper for their food items in the restaurant presenta-
tions. She did not tell Beckys class to do the same, but
they did. Because these activities were shared with
classmates, other students had the opportunity to use
the same ideas and shape their responses similarly.
It is important to note the distinction between the
structure of the activity and its implementation. The
teacher designed the noun presentation activity to
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at National Association for Gifted Children on August 21, 2015
222
have unlimited options in the product domain. Beckys
suggestions during the implementation phase of the
noun presentation activity
may have altered the
choices that students made, but her suggestions did not
alter the original design of the activity. As in all matters
pertaining to instructional design, the method of imple-
mentation has the potential to change the experiences
of the students. In analyzing the relationship of stu-
dents responses to the design of the activity, it is
important to understand the factors during implemen-
tation that impacted the intended design.
In terms of ideas, the greatest differences in
responses seemed to emerge when there were few or no
options within the product domain. In other words, the
children had to have the same product, but had options
within the content and process domains. It is signifi-
cant for teachers to be aware that offering options
within the content and process domains (and not just
in the product domain) provides students with oppor-
tunities to demonstrate creative thinking.
The ABC story activity is a good example to illus-
trate differences in childrens ideas within the confines
of the same product. The children were asked to write
a story with each sentence beginning with the next let-
ter of the alphabet. Differences occurred in the content
domain, even though the product was quite structured.
The stories resulted in very creative responses. In gen-
eral, children seemed to enjoy having choices in the
content domain. Differences in students interests were
most prevalent when activities provided unlimited
choices within the content domain, such as writing in
Keiths room, silent reading, free time, and discussion
periods.
The data suggested that responses to open-ended
activities that had virtually no options in the product
domain were still differentiated. These activities
revealed students academic abilities, creative thinking,
and personal interests. In contrast, when there were
unlimited choices in the product domain, the activities
were most often group-oriented, and it was difficult to
see differences according to individuals abilities, inter-
ests, or preferred learning styles.
Differences Related to Making Choices
An unexpected finding was that in some types of
open-ended activities where unlimited choices were
provided in the process domain, students consistently
chose to pursue these activities with peers of similar
abilities and with peers of the same ethnicity. In this
respect, at times, the social and learning structure of
the room became grouped along lines of ability and eth-
nicity. This differs from traditional instruction where
teachers make intentional decisions about grouping
children in their classrooms. Open-ended activities
allowed students to make decisions about grouping in
their class, often resulting in self-selected grouping pat-
terns. Open-ended activities also provided an outlet for
students to express their preferences for working with
students of similar abilities. Thus, by working together
consistently and over time, students with high abilities
were experiencing different learning opportunities than
those children of low abilities who consistently chose
to work together.
Students, when given the opportunity, made other
choices consistently in addition to their work partners.
These patterns of consistency, described through five
case studies (Hertzog, 1997), allowed students to work
predominately in their preferred learning style and
with their preferred peers, which contributed toward
their making choices to work at their level of comfort
rather than challenge. Thus, although their responses
to open-ended activities were differentiated, and they
provided a vehicle for curricular differentiation to
occur, they did not represent necessarily the maximum
capabilities of the children.
Summary
In summary, the findings suggested that targeted
students responses to open-ended activities were qual-
itatively different from those of students not identified
as gifted. The fact that the quality differed between tar-
geted and non-targeted learner responses was not nec-
essarily seen by the teachers as the intention for using
them. Differences in the content, process, and product
domains of &dquo;general&dquo; curriculum were manifest
through student choices as opposed to teacher choices.
Differentiation occurred by students responding in
more depth, with higher level skills, and in ways which
were guided by their learning style preferences, and
not from the teacher offering something different, more
complex, or more abstract.
Discussion
The notion that all children can be doing the same
thing (i.e.,be given the same assignment) at the same
time, and yet yield variability in responses, implores us
to look beyond the previous standards for defining dif-
ferentiation in gifted education: would, could, and
should statements. This examination into the nature of
students responses compels us in the field of gifted
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at National Association for Gifted Children on August 21, 2015
education to examine more in depth the meaning and
nature of curricular differentiation.
To be qualitatively different, with whom should the
quality be compared and how should that quality be
assessed? In this study, I was more interested than the
teachers in the relationship of targeted students
responses to non-targeted students responses. Both of
the teachers in this study evaluated the students
responses to open-ended activities according to their
beliefs about the individual students abilities and not
on criteria that was standard for all children. In inter-
views, the teachers told me that they had different
expectations for their students and evaluated their
work according to those expectations. It could be
inferred from this that providing standard criteria for
evaluation of open-ended activities may not have been
important to the teachers, and differentiation might
not occur where standard criteria for evaluation are
applied. Keith, referring to his observation that tar-
geted students take more time, elaborate, and get more
involved with the open-ended activities, commented in
an interview:
I think I encourage some of that because I dont sit and say
this is the standard that I want you to perform. Do this and
you should be satisfied. Its more as though this is what the
task is, what are you going to do?
His concernsabout stating standard criteria and
having students do the minimum to accomplish those
criteria are echoed in the debates over the effects of
minimum competencies on the performance of stu-
dents identified as gifted. Also, the notion that the
teachers individualize their expectations and evalua-
tions for their students brings back the continuing dif-
ficulty to articulate the difference between
individualized and differentiated instruction. By refer-
ring again to Passows definition-&dquo;differentiating cur-
ricula for the gifted/talented is essentially a process of
individualizing curricula to better match individual and
group learning needs, abilities, and styles&dquo; (1982,
p.6)-one can see individualized expectations for
learners were applied to responses from open-ended
activities. The individualization occurred by evaluating
responses individually, and not by offering a different
type of assignment to a particular child.
The findings raised another issue quite unexpect-
edly. Open-ended activities, which allowed students
options in the process domain, may have contributed
to grouped learning experiences in the classroom by
allowing children to self-select their work partners. In
other words, the quality and variability of group work
was directly related to the range of abilities in the
223
group. No attempt will be made here to reiterate all the
findings of the massive studies of ability grouping.
However, one finding which is especially appropriate to
mention is that &dquo;Ability grouping for enrichment, espe-
cially when enrichment is part of a within class ability
grouping practice or as a pullout program, produces
substantial academic gains in general achievement,
critical thinking, and creativity for the gifted and tal-
ented learner&dquo; (Vaughn, 1990, as cited in Rogers, 1991,
p. 2). In the context of these classrooms, children iden-
tified as gifted varied the quality of their work by work-
ing in groups with children of similar abilities.
Therefore, open-ended activities that allowed for a self-
selected grouping process provided a vehicle for the
quality of responses to be differentiated. On the other
hand, segregated groupings may have violated democ-
ratic principles in the classroom by altering the quality
of learning opportunities for some portion of the stu-
dent population. Thus, inclusive environments do not
preclude ability grouping from taking place within the
context of classroom instructional activities.
Implications and Limitations
Implications of th.e Study
Implications ofthis study for practitioners are
numerous. To determine how the responses to open-
ended activities are qualitatively different, they must
be assessed by using criteria contextual to the goal of
the activity. The assessment issue is critical for practi-
tioners. How identified gifted children should be
graded, assessed, or evaluated has been questioned
previously by VanTassel-Baska (1994):
Should the
gifted be expected to do more as well as do it bet-
ter ? Or should they be judged according to an entirely differ-
ent standard-one that gives them credit for being high
achievers in a general context, and therefore does not shift its
stringency pattern based on the population? (p. 69)
Teachers value systems and assumptions about how
children learn play a large role in determining the cri-
teria and the manner in which learner responses are
evaluated. The two teachers in this study evaluated stu-
dents responses relative to their expectations of the
students. Although this seems to be an individualized
method, questions should be raised about the role that
relative assessments of some children may play in low-
ering the ceiling on some students performances.
Differentiation should then reflect not only whether
the quality of responses are different from other
responses, but whether or not the maximum amount of
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at National Association for Gifted Children on August 21, 2015
224
student performance is exhibited. Differentiation
should have an explicit conceptual meaning of maxi-
mizing a students performance. This eliminates the
need for comparing instruction or responses to other
individuals. Differentiation, as it relates to maximum
performance, is individual in nature. As the teachers in
this study intuitively believed, the quality of the
response must be judged in relationship to the stu-
dents own abilities.
To suggest that differentiation of curriculum and
instruction occurs when teachers use open-ended
activities, and when students responses match stu-
dents ability levels, does not imply that curricular dif-
ferentiation would not occur by using other means of
differentiation, such as accelerated classes, described
in the literature. It does however, challenge the belief
that &dquo;When educators differentiate the curriculum,
they make different knowledge available to different
groups of students&dquo; (Oakes, Gamoran, & Page, 1992, p.
570). Teachers in this study facilitated differentiation,
not by making different knowledge available, but by
making choices available for students to pursue differ-
ent content areas in different ways. Thus, educators
using open-ended activities can make the same knowl-
edge available to a heterogeneous group of students by
providing choices for students to interact with that
body of knowledge in ways that enable them to maxi-
mize their performances.
The emphasis on the word &dquo;different&dquo; has placed
those of us in the field of gifted education in defensive
positions. The belief that differentiation is synonymous
with tracking or purposeful offering of &dquo;better&dquo; curricu-
lum (Oakes et al., 1942) does not allow for the concept
of differentiation to be operationalized within the con-
text of instructional strategies within heterogeneously
grouped classrooms.
Limitations to the Study
Examining the concept of qualitatively different as it
related to open-ended activities provided new lenses
for examining the nature of curricular differentiation.
As a naturalistic study, I did not compare open-ended
activities to other methods or instructional strategies of
providing curricular differentiation. I do not infer from
this study that open-ended activities provide a &dquo;better&dquo;
means of differentiating instruction than other strate-
gies that are thoroughly described in the literature
(e.g., advanced content, accelerated classes, curricu-
lum compacting).
Nor do I mean to infer that differentiation of learner
responses would occur in any classroom with any
teacher designing open-ended activities. These teach-
ers were highly motivated and skilled to meet the needs
of their students and to apply principles of curricular
differentiation in their classroom. The teachers were
selected to provide the &dquo;best case scenario.&dquo; Their dif-
ferences in implementing open-ended activities illumi-
nated the complexities involved in using this strategy
to differentiate instruction.
The naturalistic design of the study allowed me to
see the ways that teachers used open-ended activities
according to their own beliefs, patterns and styles of
teaching. Designing open-ended activities was a part of
these teachers methodologies for providing interaction
and engagement with various disciplines, subjects, and
content areas. As was noted, when choices were pro-
vided within the content domain, some of the greatest
differences in responses occurred, thus supporting the
notion that the content of the activity plays a key role
in individualizing and differentiating curriculum.
I agree with one reviewer who noted that this inves-
tigation did not address learning that occurred during
segments of time used for journal writing, story writing,
and so forth. Although learning &dquo;occurs gradually over
time and is largely unobservable&dquo; (Anderson & Burns,
1989, p. 16), I believe this study implicitly addressed
the contemporary view of student learning that &dquo;recog-
nizes the interplay between the ways in which students
organize their existing knowledge and the changes in
that organization that are necessary to accommodate
new information and experiences&dquo; (p. 42) by examin-
ing learner responses over time and relating those
responses to students abilities. I am intrigued to pur-
sue the reviewers insightful question, &dquo;How do we
know that these forms of self-expression actually
reflect learning?&dquo; (anonymous reviewer, 1996). I would
urge continued studies related to the role that open-
ended activities play in the teaching and learning
process.
Studies that further explored to what extent open-
ended activities provided teachers with knowledge
about their students would be complementary to this
study. In addition, it would be interesting to examine
open-ended activities in relation to students with learn-
ing characteristics other than giftedness. Based on the
findings, I questioned the belief that &dquo;less successful
students may prefer rather than be alienated by indi-
vidual worksheets, which allow them to work privately,
at their own pace, on unambiguous questions with one
right answer&dquo; (Metz, 1978). Although I targeted identi-
fied gifted students, many of the students that I did not
target or who were not identified as gifted seemed to
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at National Association for Gifted Children on August 21, 2015
enjoy activities which enabled them to work with part-
ners, choose drawing or acting over writing, or simply
express themselves in unusual ways. In this study, I did
not compare whether identified gifted students enjoyed
or benefited from open-ended activities more than
other students.
Summary and Conclusions:
Curricular Differentiation and Beyond
I began this paper with a comprehensive review of
curricular differentiation. I used the data from an
investigation into the nature of open-ended activities
(Hertzog, 1995) to demonstrate how responses of chil-
dren identified as gifted were qualitatively different
than responses to the same activities from children
who were not identified by the school district as gifted.
Examining student responses to open-ended activities
ignites discourse about the meaning of &dquo;qualitatively
different,&dquo; a term that Maker (1982) suggested was
value-laden and ambiguous.
In addition, the broadened conception of open-
ended activities provided a basis to compare and dis-
cuss different types of open-ended activities. Findings
revealed that differentiation of learner responses
occurred even when the product involved limited stu-
dent choices and was quite defined, not &dquo;open.&dquo; The
notion that teachers may structure open-ended activi-
ties in many ways for different instructional goals is
worthy of continued exploration. Teachers may wish to
vary the format of the products to allow for both non-
verbal and verbal responses. This would give all stu-
dents more opportunities to demonstrate their
strengths and to promote opportunities for these
strengths to be shared. It would be interesting to study
how teacher training or awareness could enhance the
ability of teachers to develop and implement open-
ended activities for various instructional purposes.
Gifted programs have traditionally provided oppor-
tunities for students to work in their own learning
styles and to pursue their own interests. About stu-
dents in gifted programs, Renzulli stated:
An almost universal finding in the evaluation work I have done
in numerous programs for the gifted has been that the great-
est source of student satisfaction almost always resulted from
the students freedom to pursue topics of their own choosing
in a manner with which they themselves felt most comfort-
able. (cited in Shore et al., 1991, p.107)
As a result of this study, I would advocate open-
ended activities as a powerful teaching strategy to pro-
225
vide such freedom in a general education setting. I
would advocate that teachers design open-ended activ-
ities for students to reveal their interests, their learning
styles, and their capabilities. In that role, I believe
open-ended activities have value for all learners, as well
as identified gifted learners. On a more cautious note, I
would urge teachers to pay attention to the choices
they provide, and to the ways in which their imple-
mentation of the activity impacts student choices and
responses.
In closing, I urge a continuation of the dialogue
about the meaning of curricular differentiation. In the
field, we must move beyond should statements and
comparisons between what we give to gifted students
that is different than what we provide for all students.
We must better inform practitioners how the articula-
tion of differentiation as &dquo;eliciting learner responses
commensurate with gifts and talents&dquo; (Passow, 1982, p.
6) can be applied in all classrooms. We must continue
to make systematic inquiries into curricular strategies
that maximize students performances.
References
Anderson, L. W., & Burns, R. B. (1989). Research in classrooms. The
study of teachers, teaching and instruction. Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
Beck, J. (1992, February 6). The educational mainstream drowns
gifted children. Chicago Tribune, p. 23.
Callahan, C. M. (November, 1995). (Moderator). Beyond the LTI
principles-What is appropriate curriculum for the gifted?
Symposium at the 42nd Annual Convention of the National
Association for Gifted Children, Tampa, Florida.
Delisle, J. R. (1994). Perhaps I know the wrong teachers. Roeper
Review, 16, 225-226.
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to
sociological methods. (2nd ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hertzog, N. B. (1995). Investigating the nature of open-ended activ-
ities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois,
Champaign-Urbana.
Hertzog, N. B. (1997). Open-ended activities and their role in main-
taining challenge. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 21,
54-81.
Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1994). Data management and
analysis methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 428-444). London: Sage
Publications.
Jackson, P. W. (Ed.). (1992) Handbook of Research on Curriculum,
NY: Macmillan Publishing.
Janesick, V. J. (1994). The dance of qualitative research design:
Metaphor, methodolatry, and meaning. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 209-219).
London: Sage Publications.
Kaplan, S. (1974). Providing programs for the gifted and talented: A
handbook. Ventura, CA: Office of the Ventura County
Superintendent of Schools.
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at National Association for Gifted Children on August 21, 2015
226
Kaplan,S. (1986). The grid: A model to construct differentiated cur-
riculum for the gifted. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and mod-
els for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp.
180-193). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Maker, C. J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted.
Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems Corporation.
Maker, C. J. (1986). Suggested principles for gifted preschool curric-
ula. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 6, 62-73.
Marland, S., Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented (Report
to the Congress of the United States). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.
McCarthy, P. (1992, January 28). Dull work for bright students. The
Boston Globe, p. 1.
Metz, K. E. (1978). Childrens thinking in primary social studies cur-
ricula. Elementary School Journal, 79(2), 115-121.
North Carolina State Department (1988). Program options for the
academically gifted. (1988). North Carolina State Department
of Public Instruction. Raleigh Division for Exceptional
Children.
Oakes, J., Gamoran, A., & Page, R. N. (1992). Curriculum differenti-
ation : Opportunities, outcomes, and meanings. In P. W. Jackson
(Ed.), Handbook of Research and Curriculum(pp. 570-608).
Passow, H. A. (1982). Differentiated curriculafor the gifted/talented.
Ventura, CA: Ventura County Superintendent of Schools Office.
Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Reis, S. M., Westberg, K. L., Kulikowich, J., Caillard, F., Hebert, T.,
Plucker, J., Purcell, J. H., Rogers, J. B., & Smist, J. M. (1993). Why
not let high ability students start school in January? The cur-
riculum compacting study (Research Monograph No. 93106).
Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center
on the Gifted and Talented.
Renzulli, J. S. (1977a). The enrichment triad model : A guide for
developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented.
Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Renzulli, J. S. (1977b). The interest-a-lyzer. Mansfield Center, CT:
Creative Learning Press.
Renzulli, J. S., & Smith, L. H. (1978). Learning styles inventory: A
measure of student preference for instructional techniques.
Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Robinson, A. (1995). A decade of scholarship: The Gifted Child
Quarterly Paper of the Year. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 39
(4),
193-194.
Rogers, K. B. (1991). The relationship of grouping practices to the
education of the gifted and talented learner. Storrs, CT: The
National Research Center On The Gifted And Talented.
Sapon-Shevin, M. (1993). Gifted education and the protection of
privilege: Breaking the silence, opening the discourse. In L. Weiss
& M. Fine (Eds.), Beyond silenced voices (pp. 25-44). Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.
School District 116. (1990). State mandated gifted comprehensive
plan. Urbana, IL: Author.
Shore, B. M., Cornell, D. G., Robinson, A., & Ward, V. S. (1991).
Recommended practices in gifted education. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience. Human sci-
ence for an action sensitive pedagogy. Albany, NY: The State
University of New York.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (1994). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted
learners. (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Ward, V. (1961). Education for the gifted: An axiomatic approach.
Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Books.
Westberg, K. L., Archambault, F. X., Jr., Dobyns, S. M., & Salvin, T.
J. (July, 1993). An observational study of instructional and cur-
ricular practices used with gifted and talented students in reg-
ular classrooms. Executive Summary. Storrs, CT: National
Research Center on Gifted and Talented, The University of
Connecticut. Research Monograph 93103.
Author Note
An earlier version of this work was presented at the
1995 annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, San Francisco, CA. I wish to
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at National Association for Gifted Children on August 21, 2015
acknowledge that this paper was a product of a super-
vised dissertation study, in the doctoral program in
special education at the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign. Members of the doctoral disserta-
tion committee included the following: Liora Bresler,
associate professor in the department of curriculum
and instruction, research advisor; Professor Susan
Fowler, associate dean for academic affairs; Associate
Professor Lizanne DeStefano, director of the bureau of
educational research; and Associate Professor Lisa
Monda-Amaya, department of special education. I
would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers who
made valuable contributions to this manuscript.
227